NOVEMBER 2014
Local government
The impact of funding
reductions on local authorities
The Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG), Sir Amyas Morse KCB, is an Officer of the House of Commons, independent of government and leads the National Audit Office, which employs some 820 employees. The Local Government and Accountability Act 2014 provides for the C&AG to conduct examinations into the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which local authorities have used their resources in discharging their functions. The C&AG may publish the results of such an examination in such manner as he considers appropriate.
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General
This report has been prepared and published under Section 7Z(A) of the National Audit Act 1983 as introduced by the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014
Sir Amyas Morse KCB
Comptroller and Auditor General National Audit Office
19 November 2014
The impact of funding
reductions on local authorities
across local authorities since 2010-11.
© National Audit Office 2014
The material featured in this document is subject to National Audit Office (NAO) copyright. The material may be copied or reproduced for non-commercial purposes only, namely reproduction for research, private study or for limited internal circulation within an organisation for the purpose of review.
Copying for non-commercial purposes is subject to the material being accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement, reproduced accurately, and not being used in a misleading context. To reproduce NAO copyright material for any other use, you must contact [email protected]. Please tell us who you are, the organisation you represent (if any) and how and why you wish to use our material. Please include your full contact details: name, address, telephone number and email.
Please note that the material featured in this document may not be reproduced for commercial gain without the NAO’s express and direct permission and that the NAO reserves its right to pursue copyright infringement proceedings against individuals or companies who reproduce material for commercial gain without our permission.
Links to external websites were valid at the time of publication of this report. The National Audit Office is not responsible for the future validity of the links.
The National Audit Office study team consisted of:
Ayanle Ali, Simon Bittlestone, Alex Burfitt, Tim Davies, Richard Douglas, Jordan Fung, Daniel Lambauer, David Medina, Zaina Steityeh, David Timmins, Durk Zwaagstra, under the direction of Aileen Murphie.
This report can be found on the National Audit Office website at www.nao.org.uk
For further information about the National Audit Office please contact:
National Audit Office Press Office
157–197 Buckingham Palace Road Victoria
London SW1W 9SP Tel: 020 7798 7400
Enquiries: www.nao.org.uk/contact-us Website: www.nao.org.uk
Twitter: @NAOorguk
and spending 11 Part Two
Impact on services 24 Part Three
The financial sustainability of local authorities 38
Appendix One
Our audit approach 47 Appendix Two
Our evidence base 49
Key facts
37%
estimated real-terms reduction in government funding to local authorities 2010-11 to 2015-16
25%
estimated real-terms reduction in local authorities’ income 2010-11 to 2015-16, once council tax is included
40%
largest local authority real-terms budgeted funding reduction, 2010-11 to 2015-16
80% single tier and county councils that have added to their total reserves between 2010-11 and 2013-14
46% budgeted real-terms reduction in spending on planning and development services, 2010-11 to 2014-15
7% budgeted real-terms increase in spending on children’s social care services, 2010-11 to 2014-15
40% total savings between 2013-14 and 2014-15 made through reducing adult social care services
16.6% reduction in full-time equivalent posts in local authorities, excluding the total school workforce, between 2010 and 2013 56% metropolitan district and unitary councils that local auditors are
concerned will not meet medium-term savings targets
Summary
1 Since 2010, the government has reduced its funding for local government in England as part of its plan to reduce the deficit. The government has also changed the nature of its funding for local authorities, to provide incentives for local growth. This has created financial opportunities for local authorities, but also increased financial risks and uncertainty.
2 Within this challenging context, local authorities must deliver a range of services.
Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide certain services. These range from adult social care to collecting waste. They also provide discretionary services according to local priorities.
3 Ensuring that local authorities remain financially sustainable, in that they deliver their statutory services to a sufficient standard, is becoming more difficult. There is a robust financial framework in place that effectively prevents local authorities becoming insolvent. However, the impact on services caused by funding reductions is more difficult to discern. A lack of services affects service users and can be poor value for money.
This increases costs in the long run or pushes costs on to other service providers.
4 The Department for Communities and Local Government (the Department) has overall responsibility in central government for local authorities’ funding. This includes distributing the majority of funding voted by Parliament to support local authorities in delivering their core services.
Our report
5 This is the first local government report published under the Comptroller and Auditor General’s new powers under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014.
These allow the Comptroller and Auditor General to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which local authorities use their resources in discharging their functions. The purpose is to provide evaluation, commentary and advice of a general nature to local authorities.
6 This report aims to provide local authorities with detailed comparative analysis of changes in income, spending and financial and service sustainability across the sector.
Our objective is to contribute to their ongoing financial planning by:
•
allowing local authorities to compare their performance on key financial issues against trends in the wider sector; and•
disseminating information across the sector about the strategies and actions different local authorities have taken to tackle their financial challenges.7 The report is comparative, allowing local authorities to assess their performance and experiences against similar types of local authorities or those that have experienced similar levels of funding reduction.
8 This report has 3 parts:
•
Part One sets out the changes to local government income and spending since 2010-11.•
Part Two assesses the impact funding reductions have had on local authority service spending and provision since 2010-11.•
Part Three examines the financial sustainability of local authorities based mainly on a survey of local auditors.9 This report complements our value for money report on central government’s approach to local authority funding, Financial sustainability of local authorities 2014.1 10 The report draws on detailed analysis of local authority data on spending and activities, along with information from case study local authorities. A separate methodology is available for this report (www.nao.org.uk/report/impacts-funding- reductions-local-authorities/).
Key findings
Changes in income and expenditure
11 Government funding for local authorities has fallen by 28% in real terms over the 2010 spending review period. This reduction will reach 37% by 2015-16 based on illustrative data from the Department. Metropolitan districts will face the largest fall in government funding, with a 41% reduction by 2015-16. County council funding, in contrast, will have fallen by 33%. There have been differences in the timing of the reductions, with district councils’ reductions having an earlier impact than in other types of authority (paragraphs 1.2 to 1.6 and Figure 2).
12 The 37% fall in government funding by 2015-16 is equal to a 25% fall in revenue spending power. The Department uses ‘revenue spending power’, a combination of government funding and council tax income, to assess the scale of the financial challenge facing local authorities. Including council tax income gives a fuller view of the implications of funding reductions on authorities’ spending capacity than looking at changes in government funding alone (paragraphs 1.7 and 1.8).
13 Reductions in spending power vary widely, with authorities that depend more on government grants seeing bigger falls in spending power. The significance of government funding to individual local authorities’ spending power varies substantially (Figure 1). Reductions in government funding have a proportionately greater impact on the revenue spending power of authorities more dependent on government funding (paragraph 1.9 and Figure 3).
1 Comptroller and Auditor General, Financial sustainability of local authorities 2014, Session 2014-15, HC 783, National Audit Office, November 2014. Available at: www.nao.org.uk/report/financial-sustainability-of-local-authorities/
Figu re 1 Go vernme nt funding and council ta x as a shar e of ‘rev enue spending po we r’
Share of revenue spending power by source (%) (average 2010-11 to 2014-15)Authorities that are more dependent on government grants will be affected relatively more by reductions in government funding Note 1 Data are for single tier and county councils only. Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Single tier and county councils Council tax Central government funding
14 Locally-raised income has fallen and has not offset reductions in government funding. The council tax freeze grant, along with the requirement for a local referendum to increase council tax above centrally prescribed levels, has suppressed increases in council tax. Real-terms council tax income between 2010-11 and 2013-14 fell by 3.1%
for single tier and county councils and 2.3% for district councils on average. Similarly, authorities have not raised extra income from fees and charges. From 2010-11 to 2013-14, income from fees and charges fell by 0.4% in real terms for single tier and county councils, and 0.1% for district councils (paragraphs 1.13 to 1.16).
15 Local authorities have increased their reserves significantly. Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, 80% of single tier and county councils, and 78% of district councils, increased their reserves (earmarked and unallocated reserves combined).
Reserves held by single tier and county councils have increased from the equivalent of 25% of net revenue expenditure in 2010-11 to 33% in 2013-14. District councils’
reserves increased from 62% to 76% of net revenue expenditure. Our case study authorities told us they increased reserves because of uncertainty about future income (paragraphs 1.20 to 1.26 and Figure 4).
16 Local authorities have managed reductions in government funding mainly by reducing spending. Staffing costs have fallen more sharply than running costs.
Local authorities reduced full-time equivalent posts, excluding the total school
workforce, by 16.6% between 2010 and 2013. Activities that reduced local authorities’
running costs, such as shared services, have been greatest in authorities with the largest reductions in government funding (paragraphs 1.27 to 1.36, Figures 5 to 8).
Impacts of funding reductions on services
17 Local authorities have tried to protect statutory services. Among single tier and county councils, spending on adult and children’s social care has been relatively protected. Environmental and regulatory services, which include statutory duties to collect and dispose of waste, have also seen lower spending reductions than other areas. Areas with a higher proportion of spending on discretionary activities, such as planning and development, and housing, have seen much larger reductions (paragraphs 2.2 to 2.6 and Figures 9 and 10).
18 There have been significant changes in the focus of local authorities’
spending reductions over the 2010 spending review period. Adult social care, for example, accounted for 40% of total savings between 2013-14 and 2014-15.
This compared with only 15% from 2010-11 to 2011-12. Planning and development, in contrast, now contributes a far smaller component of savings. Unless spending in some service areas is to be run down completely, this pattern, where formerly protected service areas contribute more towards savings, is likely to continue (paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8, Figures 11 and 12).
19 Local authorities’ spending decisions are influenced by the size of the fall in their spending power. Authorities facing larger reductions have protected adult social care, children’s social care, and environmental and regulatory services less than those with smaller reductions. Aggregate figures show that local authorities have increased spending on children’s social care by 7% between 2010-11 and 2014-15. However, among authorities with the greatest funding reductions, spending on this service fell by 4%. This indicates that, in some services, aggregate analysis of spending can be misleading and hide substantial differences between local authorities (paragraphs 2.9 to 2.11, Figure 13).
20 Local authorities have focused spending reductions on individual services within broader service areas. Within environmental and regulatory services, spending on community safety fell 47.1% in real terms, compared with a fall in spending of 11.7%
in waste services. Within highways and transport, spending on traffic management fell by 43%. The fall in spending on street lighting was 4.1% in real terms. Analysis of spending changes at the aggregate service level means that significant changes in important sub-services risk being missed (paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 and Figure 14).
21 There is little evidence of the extent to which local authorities have made savings through efficiencies rather than service reductions. Other than data on children’s and adult social care, there are almost no data on local authority outputs and activities. Assessing how far savings have impacted on service users for most service areas, based on comparable national data, is not possible for the most part (paragraphs 2.14 and 2.15).
22 Evidence from adult social care shows that local authorities have made savings through both efficiencies and reductions in activity levels, but that savings from efficiencies may now be lessening. In the 2 years after 2010-11 there is evidence that local authorities made significant price-based savings from core elements of their adult social care services. In combination with a fall in service levels this produced large total savings. Price-based savings appear to have stopped in 2013-14, however (paragraphs 2.16 to 2.21, Figures 15 and 16).
Financial sustainability
23 Some local authorities are showing persistent signs of financial stress, particularly metropolitan districts. Local auditors reported that 16% of single tier and county councils had difficulties in delivering their 2013-14 budgets. Among metropolitan districts, the figure was 22%, with 19% having difficulties in 2012-13 and 2013-14. An increasing number of authorities also needed unplanned in-year actions to deliver their budgets. In 2013-14, 33% of metropolitan districts needed unplanned reductions in service spend to balance their budgets (paragraphs 3.4 to 3.14, Figures 18 to 20).
24 Local auditors’ confidence that local authorities can make medium-term savings has fallen. Auditors are relatively confident about the future financial
sustainability of district councils, but are increasingly pessimistic about single tier and county councils, particularly metropolitan districts and unitary authorities. Auditors have raised concerns about the capacity of 56% of both types of authority to deliver their medium-term financial strategies (paragraphs 3.15 to 3.21, Figures 21 and 22).
25 Auditors are concerned about ‘funding gaps’ within local authorities’
medium-term plans, and the risks that could prevent authorities delivering savings through service redesign and transformation. Auditors are positive about authorities’ financial management capabilities and take confidence from their record in delivering savings to date. Despite this, auditors are concerned that some authorities are unable to show how they will deliver savings required in 2015-16 and beyond. Furthermore, where they have identified methods to deliver savings over the medium term, these often involve substantial, but largely untested, restructuring and transformation of services (paragraph 3.22).
Overview
26 Overall, we found that local authorities have managed their finances successfully through a prolonged period of funding reductions. Authorities have used reductions in spending, rather than increases in locally raised income, as the main method of addressing falls in government funding. They have cut back on their staffing costs in particular. There has been an increase in levels of reserves as authorities have sought to guard against financial uncertainty and provide investment funding to support savings programmes.
27 Authorities have tried to protect spending on statutory services in areas such as adult and children’s social care. But there is significant variation between authorities.
Those with large funding reductions are less likely to have protected this spending.
Within adult social care, savings have been made through efficiencies rather than service reductions alone. However, the large savings made through falls in unit costs in this area in the first 2 years of the 2010 spending review period have now ended. Aside from social care, there is no real evidence of the impact of spending reductions in different service areas on services and service users.
28 While local authorities have maintained financial resilience overall, some –
particularly among metropolitan districts – are now showing persistent signs of financial stress, such as unplanned in-year reductions in service spend. Looking to the future, there is increased uncertainty about how local authorities can manage further possible falls in income. While local authorities are planning for continued savings, they are increasingly relying on untested service transformation programmes to achieve them.
Local auditors have expressed concern about more than half of all metropolitan districts and unitary authorities, in terms of their capacity to deliver medium-term savings targets.
Part One
Changes in local authority income and spending
1.1 Since 2010-11, government funding for local authorities has changed in both scale and structure. In response to financial pressures, local authorities can raise income locally through council tax or fees and charges, use reserves, or reduce spending.
This part examines:
•
reductions in government funding for local authorities and changes to the structure of funding;•
changes in locally raised income and reserves; and•
changes in spending by local authorities.Changes in government funding for local authorities
Reductions in funding
1.2 Government funding to local authorities has fallen since 2010-11, in line with the government’s objective to reduce the deficit. The 2010 spending review set out a 26% reduction by 2014-15 in the local government departmental expenditure limit, which is the main government revenue budget for local authorities. The government announced an extra 1% reduction in 2014-15 in the 2013 Budget. The 2013 spending review included a 10% reduction in funding for 2015-16.
1.3 There have also been changes in funding to local authorities via special and specific grants and transfers. These funding streams often fall outside the local government departmental expenditure limit and tend to come from other departments. In general these funding streams have fallen, but some, such as transfers from the NHS to support adult social care, have increased.
1.4 Our analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department) data shows that total government funding to local authorities fell by 27.9% over the 2010 spending review period, 2010-11 to 2014-15. Provisional figures suggest that by 2015-16 there will have been a total reduction of 37.3%.2
2 This excludes public health grant and the Better Care Fund. We have calculated change in government funding and revenue spending power using a chain-linked index. The change figure shows change in the weighted index and cannot be used to estimate absolute change in funding. See the separate methodology (www.nao.org.uk/report/impacts- funding-reductions-local-authorities/).
1.5 Metropolitan district councils have seen the largest fall in government funding, with a 40.8% reduction (Figure 2). County council funding has fallen by 32.8%.
1.6 There have been different phases to the timing of the reductions, with some types of authorities experiencing periods of relative exposure to and protection from them.
District councils had large funding reductions in the first 2 years of the spending review period, but these have lessened in the final 3 years. In contrast, county councils had relatively small reductions in the first 2 years, but have since seen reductions largely in line with those of single tier authorities.
Figure 2
Changes in government funding to local authorities, 2010-11 to 2015-16
Percentage change in government funding (real terms at 2012-13 prices)
There is variation in the level of funding reductions across different authority types
Notes
1 Chart includes government funding component of revenue spending power data published annually by the Department. Public health grant and the Better Care Fund are excluded.
2 Chart shows annual change in a weighted index. See methodology available at:
www.nao.org.uk/report/impacts-funding-reductions-local-authorities/
3 Individual bands show annual change as a percentage of funding in 2010-11, rather than year-on-year percentage change. Individual bands are summable to produce total change from 2010-11 to 2015-16.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data
District councils 2010-11 to 2011-12
2011-12 to 2012-13 2012-13 to 2013-14 2013-14 to 2014-15 2014-15 to 2015-16
Metropolitan districts
London boroughs
Unitary authorities
County councils -45
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
-13
-7
-4
-7
-10
-11
-7 -3 -7
-10
-10
-7
-4 -7
-10
-6
-6
-6
-5
-9
-14
-11
-3 -5 -5
Changes in the structure of local authority funding from government
Revenue spending power
1.7 The Department measures the impact of government funding reductions against local authorities’ combined income from both government funding and council tax.
This combined measure of income is called revenue spending power. This represents the impact of government funding reductions on local authorities more fully than analysing government funding alone.
1.8 Adding council tax reduces the scale of reductions for local authorities.
Government funding for local authorities will fall in real terms by 37.3% by 2015-16.3 Once council tax is included, spending power will fall by 25.2% overall by 2015-16.
1.9 The significance of council tax as a share of local income is the key factor in the large variations in change in spending power since 2010-11 (Figure 3 overleaf).
Metropolitan districts and county councils have seen similar annual reductions in government funding. However, on average council tax income accounted for 56.4% of county council income over this period, compared with 33.7% for metropolitan districts. This reduces the impact of funding reductions on counties.
New financial arrangements
1.10 The Department has made changes designed to give local authorities flexibility over spending, as well as introducing changes intended to incentivise growth in income.
Changes include:
•
Business rates retention schemeFrom 1 April 2013 local authorities have kept around half of any additional growth in business rates.4 From the same date, the Department stopped revising its distribution of annual grant funding according to updated assessments of need.
•
New Homes BonusSince 2011-12, local authorities have received extra funding for new residential property in their area. The Bonus is mostly funded by reallocating a portion of revenue support grant, meaning some authorities gain, while others lose.5
•
Council tax supportIn 2013-14 the Department devolved responsibility to local authorities for
subsidising council tax bills of poorer households, while cutting funding by 10%.6
3 This excludes public health grant and the Better Care Fund.
4 Comptroller and Auditor General, Financial sustainability of local authorities, Session 2012-13, HC 888, National Audit Office, January 2013, pp. 24–26.
5 Comptroller and Auditor General, The New Homes Bonus, Session 2012-13, HC 1047, National Audit Office, March 2013.
6 Comptroller and Auditor General, Council Tax support, Session 2013-14, HC 882, National Audit Office, December 2013.
Figure 3
Change in spending power by local authority type, 2010-11 to 2015-16
Percentage change in revenue spending power 2010-11 to 2015-16 (2012-13 prices) Metropolitan districts have on average received the biggest reductions
Notes
1 The vertical lines illustrate the range of reductions within each class of authority.
The bars represent the average reduction for each class.
2 Chart includes government funding component of revenue spending power data published annually by the Department. Public health grant and the Better Care Fund are excluded.
3 Chart shows annual change in a weighted index. See methodology available at:
www.nao.org.uk/report/impacts-funding-reductions-local-authorities/
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data
District councils Average
Metropolitan districts
London boroughs
Unitary authorities
County councils -45
-40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0
1.11 While new funding arrangements created opportunities for local authorities, they also increased uncertainty. For instance, case study authorities we spoke to said the appeals process within the business rates retention scheme had created uncertainty.
Changes in locally raised income and reserves
1.12 Government funding is only one component of local authority funding. In 2013-14 local authorities received £26 billion from central government (excluding public health grant), council tax income of £19 billion and income from fees and charges of over
£8 billion.7
Income from council tax
Changes in council tax income
1.13 As well as council tax support, there have been other changes to council tax in the 2010 spending review period:
•
Since 2011-12, central government has offered 4 council tax freeze grants to local authorities that froze or reduced household council tax bills. These grants vary in amount and the years to which they apply. In general, they represent a below-inflation increase.•
Since 2012-13, where authorities have not taken the council tax freeze grant they have had to hold a referendum if they wish to increase council tax above a centrally prescribed level. Originally this was 3.5%, but it has fallen to 2% since 2013-14.1.14 All local authorities took the initial freeze grant in 2011-12. Take-up has fallen since then, with 88% taking the grant in 2012-13 and only 65% and 66% in the following 2 years. In 2014-15, local authorities received £843 million via the grant. Although paid in lieu of council tax, this funding is government grant and does not represent part of council tax income.
1.15 Among local authorities that have not taken the freeze grant, none have increased council tax above the centrally prescribed level. Our case study authorities said that the political and financial costs of holding a council tax referendum are practical obstacles to raising council tax beyond this level:
•
Blackpool Council noted that a 1% increase in council tax would deliver approximately £0.6 million. It needs to make £88 million in savings by 2015-16.•
Liverpool City Council stated that the cost of holding a referendum, which it estimates to be around £0.4 million, is a disincentive to raise council tax above the referendum limit.7 Local authorities also generate income from sources such as investments and treasury management. This can be significant for some small authorities but is not significant across the sector. Local authorities also receive income from other local authorities but we have excluded this as it is double counting.
1.16 Consequently, council tax income has remained stable in real terms over the 2010 spending review period. Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, excluding income from council tax freeze grant, single tier and county councils have seen a real-terms median fall in council tax income of 3.1%. For district councils the median change is a 2.3% fall.
Income from sales, fees and charges
1.17 Fees and charges make up a substantial source of locally raised income. Local authorities levy charges on a range of services and activities such as car parking, some social care services and leisure and cultural facilities. Local authorities’ ability to increase fees and charges varies and needs to be balanced against risks. Our case study
authorities demonstrated a range of, generally cautious, approaches:
•
London Borough of Bromley reviewed the services it charges for, looking to increase fees where possible.•
Liverpool City Council does not consider increasing fees to be viable. It wants to ensure services are affordable for residents.•
Hastings Borough Council is limited in how much it can increase charges, such as parking, as it does not want to affect tourism income and the local economy negatively.1.18 Income from fees and charges depends on local economic conditions. These have been depressed in many areas for much of this period. It will also be affected by local authorities’ savings plans. Closing a facility or cancelling an event to reduce spending also limits opportunities to generate fees and charges.
1.19 Consequently, despite the financial pressures faced by authorities, income from fees and charges has remained stable. From 2010-11 to 2013-14, it has fallen by 0.4%
in real terms for single tier and county councils and 0.1% for district councils.
Use of reserves
1.20 Authorities hold reserves in two main forms.8 Earmarked reserves are held for a specific purpose or project. Unallocated reserves include working balances to manage cash flows, and funds to protect budgets against unpredictable in-year costs.
Changes in reserves
1.21 Between 2010-11 and 2013-14 80% of single tier and county councils, and 78% of district councils, added to their reserves (earmarked and unallocated reserves combined) over the spending review period. Authorities were more likely to have built up earmarked reserves, which increased among 81% of single tier and county councils and 71% of district councils. For unallocated reserves, the figures were 58% and 56%.
8 We exclude Public Health and schools reserves from our analysis.
1.22 There has been a marked increase in levels of both types of reserve (Figure 4).
For single tier and county councils most growth has been in earmarked reserves.
These have increased from 19% to 27% of net revenue expenditure in real terms.
Unallocated reserves have remained stable at 6% of net revenue expenditure.9
1.23 Within the overall pattern of growth in reserves, there have been signs of change in the past few years. Growth in unallocated reserves between 2012-13 and 2013-14 for single tier and county councils slowed to 1%, compared with 6% and 7% in the previous 2 years. Additionally, more of these authorities used their unallocated reserves:
59% compared with 44% in the previous year. Levels of unallocated reserves also fell for district councils in 2013-14.
9 To remove the effect of change in net revenue expenditure, we use net revenue expenditure in 2010-11 as the denominator for both years.
Figure 4
Change in local authority reserves as a share of net revenue expenditure, 2010-11 to 2013-14
Reserves as percentage of net revenue expenditure in 2010-11 (real terms at 2012-13 prices)
District councils (earmarked) 39.50 40.99 42.21 49.27
District councils (unallocated) 22.28 24.83 30.01 27.02
Single tier and counties (earmarked) 19.37 21.81 24.09 26.85
Single tier and counties (unallocated) 5.62 6.01 6.37 6.43
Note
1 Net revenue expenditure in 2010-11 is used as the denominator across all years.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data
Local authorities have increased both their earmarked and unallocated reserve levels over the spending review period
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14
Changes in use of reserves
1.24 Reserves enable local authorities to manage financial uncertainty and fund some costs associated with service transformation such as redundancy payments. Local authorities can use reserves to offset funding reductions directly and protect services.
However, as they are a finite resource this can only be a short-term strategy.10 1.25 In general, our case study authorities have added to their reserves to fund savings programmes rather than offset funding reductions directly. The uncertainties and opportunities created by recent changes in the way local authorities are funded, particularly local business rates retention, have also shaped local authorities’ reserves strategies:
•
Leicestershire County Council has built a £23 million transformation reserve to fund a combination of redundancies and service re-designs to meet ongoing savings requirements.•
Liverpool City Council has built up reserves as a contingency against the uncertainty of delivering its savings programmes. This is part of a risk-based approach to setting reserve levels, which takes into account factors such as risk of grant claw-back and legal claims. Reserves are needed when savings are not delivered as planned.•
To boost its revenue income, the London Borough of Bromley has set up an economic development investment reserve to buy investment properties and generate income from business rates growth.•
Blackpool Council has added to its reserves to protect against adverse outcomes from local business rates appeals. Each local authority is now liable for 50% of repayments under the new arrangements.1.26 Overall, there is evidence of authorities building their reserves for specific
purposes linked to the risks created by the funding reductions and changes in funding arrangements. Underpinning this prudent approach, and reflected in other comments from case study authorities, is the legal requirement that authorities balance their budgets. Local authorities cannot run a deficit or borrow for revenue purposes. This means authorities view reserves as increasingly important in times of financial uncertainty.
Changes in local authorities’ spending on services
1.27 Local authorities have not offset reductions in government funding appreciably through council tax, fees and charges and use of reserves. As a result, authorities have dealt with reductions in government funding mainly by reducing spending on services. Local authority data and our case studies demonstrate that there was a wide range of approaches taken to reducing service spending across both back-office and front-line activities.
10 Audit Commission, Striking the Balance: improving councils’ decision making on reserves, December 2012.
Different types of spending on services
1.28 Local authorities’ spending on services falls into 2 main types of costs:
•
staffing costs, which represented 32% of local authorities’ total service costs in 2010-11; and•
running costs, on areas such as transport, premises and payments to third parties such as private contractors – these accounted for 68% of local authorities’ total service costs in 2010-11.1.29 Staffing costs have fallen more sharply than running costs over this period (Figure 5). However, as running costs represent a larger proportion of total costs both areas have made roughly equal contributions to overall reductions in spending.
Figure 5
Change in running and staffing costs, 2010-11 to 2013-14
Percentage change in spend 2010-11 to 2013-14 (real terms at 2012-13 prices) Staffing costs have fallen more sharply than running costs
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data Share of savings 2010-11 to 2013-14
Change in spend 2010-11 to 2013-14 Staffing costs
Single tier and counties District councils
Running costs Staffing costs Running costs -20
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
51.8
48.2
44.8
55.2
-15.1
-6.3
-13.6
-10.2
Reducing staffing costs
1.30 Our case study authorities had found numerous ways to reduce staff costs:
•
Birmingham City Council said it will reduce its full-time equivalent positions from 21,000 in April 2010 to 7,000 by 2017-18.•
London Borough of Bromley has saved more than £20 million in the spending review period by reducing staff. This includes significant reductions in back-office functions in areas such as the policy unit team, the improvement efficiency team, finance and the information and technology team as well as other changes across the organisation.•
Hastings Council has saved £350,000 by restructuring senior management posts by removing some heads of service and the post of chief executive. Along with a wider redundancy programme, this has reduced full-time equivalent posts from 460 in April 2010 to 316 in April 2014.•
West Oxfordshire Council in common with other councils was able to manage pay pressures through the 3-year national pay freeze for all staff. Among a range of other measures, Blackpool Council has tried to reduce its staffing costs by offering unpaid leave. It has an annual savings target of £1.1 million from this approach, with staff encouraged to take 5 days’ unpaid leave.1.31 Our analysis of employment data for local authorities shows that the number of full-time equivalent posts, excluding the total school workforce, fell by 16.6% between 2010 and 2013. Single tier and county councils experienced a 17.4% fall compared with 13% in district councils. The rate of reduction in employment levels in single tier and county councils has increased since 2011-12 (Figure 6). Civil service employment in government departments and agencies fell by 12.8% over the same period.
Reducing running costs
1.32 Our case study authorities used several ways to reduce the running costs of their services:
•
Use of shared servicesLocal authorities have tried optimising running costs by sharing services with other local authorities. West Oxfordshire District Council said that sharing management and a range of back-office services including ICT, legal and financial services with a neighbouring authority was vital in delivering £3 million of efficiency savings. Hastings Borough Council also noted that jointly procuring waste management services with 3 other local authorities saves £650,000 annually.
•
Increased outsourcingThe London Borough of Barnet told us it used private contractors to improve efficiency (for instance, using a call centre in Belfast to lower costs) and increase commercial revenues. The contract it has let for planning services guarantees it an income of £39 million over 10 years. Liverpool City Council said it had outsourced facilities management and residential care. Blackpool Council externalised major elements of adult social care.
Figure 6
Change in employment in local authorities, 2010 to 2013
Change in full-time equivalent employment (%)
Note
1 Data excludes total school workforce.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Office for National Statistics Quarterly Public Sector Employment Survey and Department for Education data on school workforce in England.
Single tier and county councils District councils
2010-11 to 2011-12
2011-12 to 2012-13 -6
-4 -2 0 2 4 6
3.5
-8.8 -5.8
-8 -10 -12 -14
-1.7
2012-13 to 2013-14 -12.4
-6.1
1.33 Departmental data show the impact of local authorities actions to reduce running costs (Figure 7). Between 2010-11 and 2012-13 local authorities reduced their management costs by 13%. This accounted for 24% of total savings in running costs. Management costs are recharged to service areas by an authority’s corporate centre for support functions such as payroll, human resources and information and technology support.11
1.34 Third-party payments fell by 7%, representing 50% of total savings in running costs. Within this overall figure, payments to voluntary bodies, joint authorities and other local authorities fell by 23%. Payments for professional services, such as legal and consultancy services and agency staff, fell by 10%. In contrast, the largest area of spend, ‘other’ payments to private contractors, saw a real-terms fall of only 3%.
This area of spend includes activities such as purchased care for social care clients and outsourced refuse collection and disposal.
11 Not all local authorities report their management costs in this way as some will retain these costs within individual service areas. The Audit Commission estimated that 63.5% of authorities recharge management costs to the corporate centre. Audit Commission, Councils’ centrally managed spending, February 2014.
50
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Transfer payments Transport Premises Supplies and services Management costs Third-party payments
Percentage (real terms at 2012-13 prices) 50
24
13
12
6
23 -6
-5 -7
-13
-11 -12
Figure 7
Change in components of running costs, 2010-11 to 2012-13
Local authorities management costs have seen the greatest reduction
Note
1 Total share of savings 2010-11 to 2012-13 may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data Share of savings 2010-11 to 2012-13 (%)
Change in spend 2010-11 to 2012-13 (%)
Different strategies in different authorities
1.35 There are differences to the changes in staffing and running costs between authorities experiencing different levels of reductions (Figure 8). Single tier and county councils have seen falls in staffing costs, with the largest occurring in authorities with the lowest funding reductions. In contrast, reductions in running costs are greatest in those with the highest funding reductions, while running costs have been stable in authorities with lower funding reductions.
1.36 This may be evidence of an increase in outsourcing among authorities with lower funding reductions, as this activity transfers spending from staff to running costs. It may also mean authorities with higher levels of funding reduction are reducing levels of outsourced activity or the costs of existing outsourced activities. The data are not detailed enough to identify the precise cause. But they do suggest there are different mechanisms at work in authorities with different levels of funding reduction.
Figure 8
Change in staffing and running costs across authorities facing different levels of funding reduction
Percentage change in median spend 2010-11 to 2013-14 (real terms at 2012-13 prices)
Local authorities experiencing higher funding reductions have reduced running costs more signifcantly
Notes
1 Local authorities with high cuts are those with a real-terms reduction in spending power greater than 23.5%
(1 standard deviation below the mean) between 2010-11 and 2014-15. Those with low cuts saw a reduction in spending power of less than 15.0% (1 standard deviation above the mean).
2 Data are for single tier and county councils only.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data Total costs
Staffing costs Running costs
High-cuts authorities Medium-cuts authorities Low-cuts authorities -25
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5
-13
-9 -8
-14 -14
-6 -5
-20 1
Part Two
Impact on services
2.1 In response to falling government funding, local authorities have reduced their staffing and running costs. This part focuses on the implications of these reductions for specific service areas. It examines:
•
how local authorities have prioritised different service areas within their savings programmes;•
the impact of funding reductions on service spending; and•
the impact of funding reductions on service activity and service users.Strategies for prioritising services
2.2 Our case studies demonstrated a range of approaches to protecting different service areas within their savings programmes (Figure 9). Although local authorities vary in how they distribute funding reductions between services, their main consideration has been protecting statutory duties. What statutory duties require of local authorities is not always clearly defined. This complicates how authorities prioritise spending across services.
2.3 Despite the emphasis on statutory duties, our case study authorities wanted to reflect the priorities of local residents. Therefore, some councils identified discretionary services that they felt were local priorities and should be protected. Others were concerned that discretionary activities were often the ones most widely used by the public. Reducing these activities risked the authority providing services to a smaller proportion of its population.
Change in service spend
Spending change by service
2.4 The focus on protecting statutory services is reflected in budget data for 2010-11 to 2014-15. Among single tier and county councils, spending on adult and children’s social care has been relatively protected. Spending on environmental and regulatory services, which includes local authorities’ statutory duties to collect and dispose of waste, has also seen lower spending reductions than other areas.
2.5 The largest spending reductions have been in planning and development services in single tier and county councils. The average reduction is 46% (Figure 10 overleaf).
Most of this reduction took place in the first 2 years of the spending reductions, in 2010- 11 and 2011-12. This involved ending centrally funded programmes such as the Working Neighbourhoods Fund, the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund, Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders and the Local Enterprise Growth Initiative.
2.6 Most spending reductions in housing services have come from planned reductions in the Supporting People programme. This is a discretionary service that gives advice and support on housing to elderly and vulnerable people to allow them to continue living independently. During this period, spending on this area will fall by a median of 45.3%, across single tier and county councils.
Figure 9
Local authorities’ approaches to distributing funding reductions between services
Liverpool City Council
Liverpool took legal advice on what its minimum statutory requirements were, taking account of local residents’ needs. This enabled it to classify which functions are statutory and which discretionary within each of its services. Liverpool aims to reduce the budget for its discretionary services by 50% over 3 years.
It will make 25% reductions to budgets for statutory functions. The council told us it thought protecting some discretionary services was better long-run value for money, as it alleviated demands on statutory services, which were more costly. Extra savings are then taken from the mandatory service budgets.
Blackpool Council
For 2013-14, Blackpool Council carried out a priority-based budgeting process, splitting services into 5 categories. The highest priority group included both statutory and discretionary services. These are considered political priorities for the council so are protected, such as providing free school breakfasts.
The council expects to reduce lower priority services significantly over time. The lowest category priority group of services will end within 3 years.
Hastings Borough Council
Hastings Borough Council has asked service heads to model the effect of different percentage reductions in spending on local services. Hastings told us that through running public consultations every 2 years, it is aware of the services that are valued by local residents. Many of the in-demand services, such as maintaining parks and gardens, are discretionary. But given their popular demand, the council said it was reluctant to scale them back.
London Borough of Bromley
London Borough of Bromley has carried out ‘baseline reviews’ of its services to find additional savings.
This involved an examination of statutory and non-statutory functions to consider efficiency options, income reviews and alternative service delivery models as well as identify the boundaries of what constitutes providing a statutory service. Bromley also noted that many of the discretionary services it provides are among the most visible to the public and thus difficult to roll back.
Source: National Audit Offi ce analysis of case study interviews
Figure 10
Change in budgeted spend by service, 2010-11 to 2014-15
Spending on adult and children’s social care has been relatively protected
Note
1 Data for Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Care is for single tier and county councils only.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department for Communities and Local Government data Single tier and county councils
District councils
Planning and development
Housing services
Environmental and regulatory Cultural services
Transport and highways
Central services
Adult social care
Children’s social care
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10
Median change in budgeted spend 2010-11 to 2014-15 (%) (real terms at 2012-13 prices)
-46
-24
-34
-17
-29 -25
-21 -16
-18 -21
-11 -12
-9
7
Share of total savings
2.7 The extent to which different service areas have been protected can be seen by comparing a service’s share of spend against its share of savings (Figure 11). Among single tier and county councils, adult social care, children’s social care and central services have made lower contributions to total savings relative to their share of total spend. Other services such as housing and cultural services have made a relatively greater contribution.
Figure 11
Share of total budgeted spend and savings by service area, 2010-11 to 2014-15
Adult social care and children’s social care have made lower contributions to total savings relative to their share of total spend
Notes
1 Figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
2 Data are for single tier and county councils only.
3 The negative figure for children’s social care indicates an increase in spending over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department for Communities and Local Government data Share of total savings 2010-11 to 2014-15
Share of total spend 2010-11 Planning and development
Housing services Environmental and regulatory
Cultural and related Transport and highways
Central services Adult social care
Children’s social care
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Real terms at 2012-13 prices (%) 28
41
17
12 11
13 8
16 7
18 6
3 6
14 4
14 -3
Change in savings patterns over time
2.8 The pattern of spending reductions by service area is not fixed. There have been significant shifts in the focus of savings between 2010-11 and 2014-15 as the relative degree of protection given to different service areas has changed (Figure 12). Adult social care, for example, accounted for 40% of total savings between 2013-14 and 2014-15 compared with only 15% between 2010-11 and 2011-12. Planning and development, in contrast, now makes up a far smaller proportion of savings. Unless spending in some service areas is to be run down completely, this overall pattern, in which formerly protected service areas start to contribute a larger share of savings, is likely to continue.
Links between spending changes and size of funding reduction
2.9 Local authorities have faced varying levels of reduction in their spending power. This is reflected in the different spending profiles between authorities (Figure 13 on page 30).
Our analysis shows that:
•
there is no clear pattern linking the size of spending reduction in housing services, cultural services, central services and transport with the size of overall funding reduction faced by an authority;•
authorities with the largest funding reductions have made far greater cuts in spending on planning and development. This is largely because the government has decided to end certain programmes focused on deprived areas; and•
there is a link between the size of funding reduction faced by an authority and its spending decisions in adult social care, children’s social care and environmental and regulatory services. Authorities facing higher funding reductions have been less able to protect these areas than those with lower reductions.2.10 This indicates that, in some service areas, the national picture of spending may be misleading as a guide to what is happening at a local level. For instance, aggregate figures show that, on average, local authorities have increased spending on children’s social care by 7% (Figure 10). However, among authorities with the greatest funding reductions, spending on this service area has fallen by 4% on average (Figure 13).
2.11 All authorities have made roughly equal reductions in service areas with more discretionary activities or where statutory responsibilities are less clearly defined, such as culture, housing and transport. In contrast, authorities with lower reductions have protected spending in areas where they have greater levels of statutory responsibilities, to a larger extent than authorities with higher reductions. The fact that authorities with large reductions have not made proportionately greater savings in their discretionary areas, and instead have made larger reductions in their statutory areas, suggests they are approaching the limits to the amount they can save by reducing discretionary activities.
Figure 12
Share of total budgeted savings in 2010-11 and 2014-15
The focus of savings has shifted significantly
Notes
1 Figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
2 Data are for single tier and county councils only.
3 The negative figure for children’s social care indicates that expenditure grew in 2014-15.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department for Communities and Local Government data 2010-11 to 2011-12
2013-14 to 2014-15 Planning and development
Housing services Environmental and regulatory
Cultural and related Transport and highways
Central services Adult social care
Children’s social care
-40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Proportion of total change spend by year (%) 15
40
7
26
12 17
12 18
15 22
21 6
8 6
10 -35
Figure 13
Change in budgeted spend, 2010-11 to 2014-15
High-cuts councils have been less able to protect social care
Notes
1 Local authorities with high cuts are those with real-terms reductions in spending power greater than 23.5%
(1 standard deviation below the mean) between 2010-11 and 2014-15. Those with low cuts saw a fall in spending power of less than 15.0% (1 standard deviation above the mean).
2 Data are for single tier and county councils only.
Source: National Audit Office analysis of Department of Local Government and Communities data Planning and development
Housing services
Environmental and regulatory Cultural services
Transport and highways
Central services
Adult social care
Children’s social care
-60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Median change in budgeted spend 2010-11 to 2014-15 (%) (real terms at 2012-13 prices)
High-cuts authorities Medium-cuts authorities Low-cuts authorities -55.4
-47.0
-22.6
-32.7 -40.3
-32.1 -28.9 -28.8
-22.9 -18.4
-6.9
-9.8 -21.8
-18.2
-5.1 -15.3
-5.0
-12.7 -10.1
-4.3 -1.2
7.6 14.8 -32.4
Spending change within services
2.12 As well as different spending patterns between authorities, there are significant differences in how much authorities reduced spending on individual services within a broad service area (Figure 14 overleaf). For instance:
•
Over the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, budgeted spend for children’s services was relatively stable in real terms (0.1% median reduction in total spend), but this included a 34% median fall in spending on services for young people. These falls were offset by median increases in family services (20%), mainly in respite care for disabled children.•
Within environmental and regulatory services, the median fall in spending on community safety is 47% in real terms. This compares with a median fall in spending on waste collection of only 12%.•
Within highways and transport, the median fall in spending on traffic management and safety is 43%. For street lighting, the median fall in spending is only 4% in real terms.2.13 Overall, this shows that change in aggregate spend for a service area is often a poor indicator of change on a particular activity. A focus at the aggregate level means significant changes in important individual services such as youth services or community safety may be overlooked.
Impacts on service levels
2.14 Reductions in spending on services do not necessarily feed through into reductions in service activity and impact on service users. All the case study authorities we spoke to stressed that they tried to minimise the impact of funding reductions on service users.
For example, they referred to initiatives such as pay freezes, using shared services and reductions in running costs for premises and transport as ways of making savings through efficiencies rather than reducing services.
